User talk:Francis Tyers/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi, please see my response on my talk page. Grandmaster 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for reverting my change to Hitchhiking. I'm still new to this. Is the Talk page really effective for bringing the point of unclearness I mentioned, to the attention of someone to whom the original was clear? I edited the article itself because I figured that would most quickly get the attention of a person best positioned to rewrite the point.

Do you understand what I am asking? Please educate me a little on why Talk pages are considered the place to incite a change such as I was hoping to. I should think most people who could help will not happen to read the Talk page.

Thank you. --Christian Campbell 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. - FrancisTyers 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thank you for your vigillance, there is really a need for third party comment in this edit conflict with Koavf, can you give us your opinion? Daryou 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, Western Sahara is a territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario, each side has its own arguments which they think suffiscient, the UN is trying now to resolve the problem through a referundum. First of all, the problem is about neutrality of WP, the flag shown in the politics infobox is the flag used by one party of the conflict (polisario) and refused by the other (Morocco) and not recognized by the UN (the mediator in this conflict). There was an edit conflict about the infobox of Western Sahara page between me in one side and Koavf and Arre in the other, a survey was necessary and the results are here and here. The "no flags" option seems to be the least controversial solution. Daryou 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, I think the "no flags" option is the least controversial too. - FrancisTyers 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's clear that my edits aren't accepted by Kaovf and Arre, I asked hedley to make the change, It would be better if a third party do it. Thanks. Daryou 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make an account[edit]

Thanks for the thought.

I am not a name, only a number.

Well, several may be ;-) ... and I can do four little squiggles above the n on a Japanese keyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:01, 23 December 2005

Rate Your Music[edit]

thanks very much for your intervention there. be forewarned, if this guy figures out how to send messages here, you probably won't hear the end of it. it's best not to engage him. then again, we didn't engage him for 4 months on rym and look what happened! the guy is tenacious. - Sokeripupu 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I think the best way forward is just to revert him when he vandalises the page, if he isn't going to properly word and source criticism that is the only way forward for now. If he wants to discuss the Wikipedia page on the talk page then all well and good. You might want to check out WP:3RR if he is very persistant. Also: WP:Vandalism, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:FAITH and WP:Civility. You might point these out to him. If he continues to violate these policies then you should take it further. Personally I don't think mediation is going to help if he is editting in bad faith. - FrancisTyers 16:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. But I'm not sure how to report this guy for his abusive language. If formal mediation is not the solution either, what is? I couldn't find anything that seemed relevant in the Resolving Disputes wiki. And is it appropriate to delete all of the non article-related posts from the talk page? Also, User: has responded to you on his talk page.Sokeripupu 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, never mind, I just found the AMA advocate page, which seems like the appropriate place to ask these questions. If I'm wrong again, let me know! Thanks!Sokeripupu 01:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara-related mediation[edit]

===>Thanks I sincerely appreciate your efforts to mediate the dispute. I didn't mean to imply that you are biased in favor of Daryou, rather, I was warning you to beware of the tactics that he has consistently employed in order to push a pro-Moroccan agenda on these pages. Since I myself am biased against his edits (having gone through dozens of exchanges, feeling manipulated the entire time), I don't expect you to take everything that I say at face value either, but judge everything on its merits. Thanks. Justin (koavf) 19:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, I realise it can be really infuriating, on contentious topics (such as Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Workers Party) I have no end of trouble keeping my head. Its difficult to not let your personal beliefs get in the way of NPOV, but needless to say I've seen worse. If you think the situation is so bad that you won't be able to reach a consensus, you could take the page to an RfC or the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, but to be honest I think we can work it out without that. - FrancisTyers 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You proposed an infobox without flags and to move the template to a SADR one, I accepted but I see that the strategy of Koavf is simply to refuse any of my propositions. I try to avoid responding to his personal attacks, he is now discussing my supposed strategy instead of my propositions and is attacking me personally. Thank you very much for your help. Daryou 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

===>A perfect example Here's a great example of the sort of bad-faith, POV edits I see Daryou making: The page Sahrawi has been reverted back and forth over the past few days. Daryou wants to push a Moroccan POV on the page, taking out relevant, credible information about current Moroccan abuses, and emphasizing outdated data about the Polisario (for istance, they no longer have prisoners of war). When I inserted several new re-wordings and verifiable sources, he simply reverted again] to his previous edit. His edits introduced deliberate omissions, errors in fact, and errors in simple English grammar, and he refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page to reach consensus. Justin (koavf) 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely untrue, please refer to the Talk:Sahrawi. Daryou 21:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I am going to look there and will post my thoughts. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your mediation. I know that it will be a chore, but can you also move "WS" politics related pages into "SADR" politics related? for example: "politics of SADR" instead of "Politics of WS"? Thanks. Daryou 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best thing to do here is use the {{move}} template. Add this to the talk pages of the articles you want to move. Wikipedia policy looks badly on arbitrary moves iirc. - FrancisTyers 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French Collaboration Project[edit]


Francis, keep out of it. You what Viriditas is up to here. You are fine, you enter into discussion & seek to find consensus. He has to learn he does not own the page, to stop the lies & abuse he tells and his erroneous attack on Canaen. 02:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[quote]Hi, while I appreciate that you may have legitimate concerns ... [/quote]
Nah, to be honest I have dealt with guys like him before and in real life. He works on the basis that he thinks he can frighten folk off his territory by making threats, scaring us with admins, throwing as ***t as he can as he know some will stick - or as you say, the stink of it will frighten others away.
I looked at the wiki mediation but it is all a waste of energy against anyone that is willing to spend the hours he has done putting together an entirely erroneous and dishonest RfC against Canaen.
But I think I will write to the foundation and find out who their legal counsel because what he has written against Canaen is pure indelible libel. Whereas mediation is a waste of time, the foundation will jump if they start receiving legal letters requesting user contact details. They have to be law.
I approached both of them, him and Skinwaker very reasonably in the first place and straight off received the same modus operandi. he is what he shows himself to be. I have absolutely no connection with Canaen or anyone else but I recognise decency and indeceny when I see it.
When does one fight fire with fire? BTW, no hard feelings if you delete this afterwards. 02:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, our edits at this article clashed. I changed it to a redirect, but if you want to go with the afd then just revert me. JeremyA 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish minorities POV fork[edit]

Yeah, I was kind of afraid of that after I read the author's comment. I'll try to keep an eye on it. With more pleasure, I'll check out Leprechaun. Thanks, and Merry Christmas, Tom Harrison (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks. It just ticks me off what is happening to Deeceevoice. Anyway, Merry Christmas back at you.--Alabamaboy 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassiobury Park[edit]

Thanks for the lightning-fast image -- I haven't seen that one before, and the name "Danbury Palace" is also new. I have a couple of jpgs (snapped by me) to add to the page and will do that when I figure out how. I'm a complete novice on Wikipedia!

Merry Christmas ...

Puffball 16:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Francis, I've been tweaking a bit and checking links. The "Colne" link takes you to the town of Colne and not to "River_Colne%2C_Hertfordshire", which is where it should go -- I'm sorry but I can't see how to make this work. Also I removed the link to the National Parks section, because Cassiobury Park ain't one! I'm holding off on the pics as I have discovered a couple of nice old prints (way out of copyright) and need to scan them first. I used to walk in Cassiobury Park all the time when I lived in Watford (1950-93) and this project is a pleasant exercise in nostalgia. Unfortunately the roar of the M25 hasn't improved the place, nor the philistines on the council, but that's by the by.

Puffball 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, don't even get me started on local councils ;) - FrancisTyers 20:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The one called "the best council money can buy" must remain nameless.

I answered the "amenity area" question as best I could. A difficult thing to define, as I always thought it implied public access, but a Google search on the phrase suggests otherwise.

Many thanks for your message about identifying the right "Colne". I had a poke around the picture uploading area but could only find one volunteer willing to upload. He asks for an email first, but doesn't provide an address. I'll go to Google Images next, when time permits.

I can see I've got a lot to learn before getting my Wiki badge at Cub Scouts. Puffball 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the Wikification of Cassiobury House. You'll be pleased to hear I've printed out some basic help pages ... I've revised the Newton Valence article & would appreciate your professional eye thereon. See -- I've got the hang of piped links! Puffball 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have not vandalised anything, be carefull before jumping to conclusions and don't misuse the word vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBits (talkcontribs) 19:30, 25 December 2005

No, problem, just my finger touched some button and then I realized it. Thanks anyway, it's a good thing to be sensitive. You did what you should have done. --TimBits 19:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chernenko photos[edit]

I decided to fire up Google and found some photos of Chernenko:

Enjoy. Zach (Smack Back) 07:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zach (Smack Back) 07:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theoretical linguistics[edit]

I responded to your post over in WikiProject Linguistics. I completed a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of Florida in 1974, but never worked in the field (jobs were very scarce in U.S. Academia at the time). So, I'm out of date, but would still like to help developing articles on theoretical linguistics. So far, my only Wikipedia contribution related to linguistics wikifying the intro to Constituent (linguistics). -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the first step is to prepare a proposal and list it at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects. I'll see what I can put together in the next couple of days, and check back with you. We do need to attract some other editors to make it viable. I can coordinate things, but as I am out of touch with developments in the last 30 years, I'll be somewhat limited in what I can contribute in content. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I still have my library (although I just recently packed away the journals from the early 70s). I did get as far as generative grammar, although I didn't accept Chomsky's standard model. I currently have about 70 titles on my list of articles to create, plus a bunch I want to add to, but I tend to bounce around the areas I'm interested in so I'll just add linguistics to the list. For now, though, I have to go out and work on the fence (which was blown down by Hurricane Wilma). -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see User:Dalbury/WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics. I would like to put an image in the templates, but I don't have anything I can use that represents linguistics. All comments and suggestions welcome. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I slapped together an S over NP VP image, until we find something better. I'll go ahead and post a project proposal notice. If you don't object, I'll see about moving the porject page out of my user space tomorrow. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara[edit]

Hi, thank you for your mediation effort, you moved the WS Politics Template into SADR Politics template to comply with WP principles of neutrality, I agreed because this change is in line with WP politic of neutrality. Actually this template is used in Western Sahara's politics related articles. I have a question: are those articles talking about Western Sahara (the territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario) or the SADR (the self proclaimed republic)? If the articles are talking about the territory, they are now completely biased to the Polisario's POV, in that case a template without flags is relevant. If the articles are talking about SADR the titles should be changed to SADR politics...etc. Thank you very much. Daryou 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no problem. If there is a Western Sahara template, it should include both flags, per: Template:Politics of Cyprus. If there is not a Western Sahara template then the pages on Western Sahara should include both the SADR infobox and the Moroccan infobox. Pages on the SADR should include only the SADR template, pages on Morocco should include only the Moroccan template. I think that it might be helpful to perhaps have Western Sahara as a disambiguation page, pointing to SADR and whatever the Moroccan equivalent is. - FrancisTyers 20:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the situation is more or less neutral in the Western Sahara page, the infobox don't include any flag, there is still a problem with WS politics related pages. I think that we both agree that there is 3 solutions:

  • one infobox without flags like in the WS page
  • the two infoboxs of the parties of the conflict (Morocco and SADR)
  • Change the name of the pages into "SADR ..Etc": this could be a good solution because the articles are talking actually about SADR politics.

I wonder if Koavf will agree with any of those solutions, You saw that he refused my proposition before but accepted the same one when it came from you!! Daryou 20:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, if the articles are talking about the SADR then this should be reflected in the name. I'll reserve my thoughts about the flags until the articles are correctly named. I'm sure you appreciate I'm trying to remain neutral in this :) - FrancisTyers 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I appreciate, thank you, will you support me if I corrected the names myself? Daryou 20:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want, give me a list of the articles you would like moved and I'll put them up for moving. - FrancisTyers 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here they are:

You'll see by yourself that those articles are talking more about SADR than any thing else. Daryou 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added the move template to all, except Elections in Western Sahara which includes both. Also I am dubious about Foreign relations of Western Sahara, but I added it anyway. - FrancisTyers 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: gunkland[edit]

hey francis,

thanks for the feedback - its still a work in progress and will be fragmentory in the final version - kinda like a dvd with nothing but "extras" or "special features" material on it. no actual content. but i will let you know when it is done.

mister skye

(ps - i think i will leave the editing/moderating of this to the gatekeepers. i am not so interested in being a moderator of information and facts. my imagination is too colorful and i would be prone to embellish an article that i found to be too lackluster.)

take care


I reverted your whole edit. I'm afraid I take a strict and rather cruel approach to those who abuse grammar ;-) I'm not a huge fan of the use of tags, I have to say. They tend to litter articles to no great effect. The substantiation for the suggestion does seem to be included further down in the article in the criticism section. I'm not keen on the word "metaphor" either. It's a historically inaccurate piece of mudslinging and we should probably call it that. If you look back through the history, you'll see there used to be an apt Orwell quote. I think one of the antimuslim editors removed it, sadly. You might like to add this in:

"Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable.""

Orwell wrote that in 1946. Plus ca change, hey? James James 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

replied :) User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Islamofascism --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 03:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it would be a lot better to have an article that stuck to describing the debate. The problem is it seems never to stand still long enough for that to evolve! I've noted on the talkpage what I think the problem is. Personally, I think that anyone who uses the term "islamofascism" just buried their credibility, if they had any. The attempt to make Islamists like Osama bin Laden look like historical fascists is rather tortured. Any article about it should be clear that it's a concept with a certain currency in certain circles, not a descriptive term in politics.

But the likelihood of getting everyone to agree with that view is so slim that I figure I'm better off doing something else! James James 03:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the peer review comments for "T-34", and helping clear up the red links. I may not give it much attention this week, but I will make sure all the suggestions are addressed. Cheers. Michael Z. 2005-12-27 06:12 Z

Environmental Vegetarianism[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused as to why you've changed the images I found to the old images. Do you not think that the newer images were of a higher quality? - FrancisTyers 15:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Francis, I origionally chose these images which display no lesser quality. How do you quantify quality by the way? You went nuts changing everything that I worked on once I had written the crit section for you. I chose not to deal with minor issues like the image at the time but I don't believe the images should have been changed in the first place. Thus, I am a little confused here. Nidara 17:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you put this on my Star Trek page?[edit]

{{db|nn, doesn't assert notability}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Trek Rules! (talkcontribs) 18:53, December 27 2005 (UTC)

I added the nowiki tags so your talk page doesn't appear on the Candidates for speedy deletion category. - Akamad Happy new year! 03:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No original research policy[edit]

I posted a statement in a discussion page somewhere about the no original research policy, and you kindly gave me a link to the relevant page on said policy. I wasn't logged on at that time, but I am now, so I'll respond to this issue with my regular Wikipedia identity.

Well, thanks for the link! All right, I get it. I hope Wikimedia would establish a "Wiki-infoshare: The (Truly) Public Encyclopedia" or something like that soon -.-

Plus, there's always the problem: The policy page suggests publishing so-called "original research" in a journal or reputable publication. The problem is... there are lots of everyday observations that would simply be too trifling for release in such a journal but would be beneficial to readers of Wikipedia who might simply not be familiar with a particular environment or point of view. What's your take on this?

In my opinion, authors of articles should simply be allowed to provide so-called "original research" if they add in a note stating that certain info might be observation-based or limited to a particular geographic area. This note could take on a set form similar to the spoiler warnings commonly seen on Wikipedia articles on works of fiction ;-) Again, your views?

--Lapin rossignol 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. - FrancisTyers 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot!--Lapin rossignol 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was an aw'fly nice thing to do. I noticed it, so I just thought I'd mention it. Cheers. ++Lar 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, have you considered Adminship? I think you might make a good one. ++Lar 03:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ANCOT&ASD - Puffball 18:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) - FrancisTyers 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken Links[edit]

Fran, are you aware that these links on your user page are broken? - Me - My Free Shell Service - My Photographs (Contact me if you want to use one under the GFDL) - My List of Quotes

Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svgtalk|contribs 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

addition essential[edit]

Yeah, um, I don't exactly agree that it's inappropriate. I am a communist myself, and I believe that telling people about this proposed monument is absolutely essential, so that what remains of communism worldwide can galvanize against it. What is it about including a link to the proposed monument for that purpose is so inappropriate? If it goes in the communist state article, it will barely ever get seen, and besides which, the monument is apparently not meant for just "victims" of self-proclaimed communist states, but also for "victims" of communism generally. In other words it is a fascist attack on the communist movement and its proposed existence should be acknowledged and warned about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikodawgzz (talkcontribs) 16:41, 29 December 2005

This page is not suitable for that addition to wikipedia. Please find another. PS. Try not to label opponents as fascist, the term has next to no meaning. Be inventive, Be bold! :) - FrancisTyers 17:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newton Valence[edit]

Yes, the Wikiosity makes it easier to read. Not sure about the "Trivia" heading, though. The rambling old house behind the Beemer is Goleigh Manor, just outside the parish boundary in East Tisted. I have pix of NV but they're not very interesting (mainly sheep). Thought I'd wait for a nice day and get a couple more, then use them to teach myself how to use images in WP. Puffball 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, my revision crossed your reply to my 1st attempt! Puffball 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


for the back up on that fascism article. I really DO think Sam Spades' version was ideologically loaded. But he won't discuss it with an inferior Wikipedia newbie, I imagine (;

--Lacatosias 19:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

Hi FrancisTyers,

When leaving a cleanup tag, it is preferable to explain why on the article's talk page. Specific details of exactly what needs to be changed or cleaned up is more helpful. Otherwise the cleanup tag is of little use to anybody, so I generally remove any cleanup tags that don't have explanations on the talk page. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied on your talk page - FrancisTyers 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyuss and friends / If Monkeys Were Masons[edit]

Kyuss didnt make it into the movie but there are 3 unida tunes.. the full list is Unida, QOTSA, Idlewild, Incubus, Sloan, Cake, Rage Against the Machine and ... Survivor. However rest assured I own or intend to get my hands on everything by Kyuss, Unida, Hermano, QOTSA and their various offspring...

Deiz 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xybertek Systems for Deletion - criteria clarification[edit]

I agree this is NOT a directory, but I did a quick a search of similar organisations e.g Microsoft (with similar information posted), but I really needed to find out what criteria such submission should have before it can be considered appropriate, just as Microsoft submission was retained —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajai aiyesa (talkcontribs) 15:20, 30 December 2005

Replied on your talk page. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about External link to YelloWikis?[edit]

If an article is linked to YelloWikis rather than creating an article on Wikipedia, will this be permissible? I will also appreciate links to all the guidelines on wikipedia as I would love to contribute my skills too

Replied on your talk page - FrancisTyers 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thank's for pointing that out. I've commented on the pages you requested. I think some of them could (although not necessarily should) be moved, but others should definitely keep their present name. Reasons are given on the talk pages. Arre 16:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, after having skimmed some pages of edit wars & debate: thanks for intervening, and good job staying neutral. Arre 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Splitting parts out for sub-articles could help. On the one hand, it reduces the informative content of the page for the casual reader, on the other hand it gives some protection against edit wars. The most logical choice for me would be to remove the purely political content and put that in sub-pages (ICJ debate, human rights etc), but I'm not sure that works in the long run. Everybody wants their darling argument to be in the short summary at the main page too...
  • The reason the page named Sahrawi I don't know. Sahrawi people would be better, I suppose, if that's the norm.
ciao, Arre 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

evidence page[edit]

Please keep comments in your own section of the evidence page of deeceevoice's RfAr[1].

Thanks. -Justforasecond 02:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please keep your speculation, divining and irrelevant rhetoric off the Evidence page. Thanks - FrancisTyers 03:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend. --Viriditas 11:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Euclid" article vandalism[edit]

Hello, Francis. I noticed in the Euclid article that you reverted some vandalism (it's been vandalized again, FYI). How do you "revert". Is there a special action you have to perform? --Jugbo 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. --Jugbo 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WikiThanks.png Greetings FrancisTyers,
I wish to offer my gratitude supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Natalinasmpf 07:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurdish People[edit]

Yes, that revert was an acident. I thought you were vandelising then when on your contribs I saw the discussion on the talk page. I tried to revert my edits. Sorry. - iGod 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skull (symbolism)[edit]

Thanks for helping! I'm sure we can reach a consensus. My only wish for this article is for it to be sourced, neutral and encyclopaedic, just like every other article. I've no doubt that Wetman, DreamGuy et al want the same thing. Soo 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, maybe I'm being stupid, but reasoning for what? Mediation? Sorry to be dumb. Soo 00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. Efficiently resolved. Soo 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I did not provide any citation on Sahrawi The {{fact}} template creates a [citation needed] mark in the text and add the article to Category:Articles lacking sources. I though that, in combination with the big {{totallydisputed}} was enough indication. I did it to unclutter the top a bit, feel absolutely free to revert. Circeus 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, we talked about the flags issue before, I thought that you could accept a no flags template, can you explain me? Thanks. Daryou 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, yeah that was for the infobox. This is for a userbox. Userboxes don't have to be NPOV as they exist only in userspace. If you want to create one with a Moroccan flag and join the project that is not a problem. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I understand your point, actually this is not a userbox, it is a template for a Wiki Project, it have to comply with neutrality principles. By the way what about proposed page moving in WS politics related? Best regards. Daryou 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much :). By the way, can you mediate in our new dispute about the WS portal : in the introduction and related topics. The dispute is about the meaning of the term "Western Shara" and about which flag to use. I understood from the wikiproject goals that Standardizing terminology related to Western Sahara/SADR and enforcing neutrality on issues related to the conflict are priority (Koavf wrote it). Thank you very very much for your help. Daryou 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I didn't explain well my point, Northern Ierland is a part of GB, but there is some sources that say it's under Military occupation and there is no sources that says it is not. It was an example to say that it is difficult to find a page that says exactly that a territory isn't under Military occupation. By the way what do you think about my five sources? Daryou 17:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was just an example, You requested a page saying exactly that a territory {WS) isn't under Military occupation, It is difficult even about some territories like NI, Tibet or even California. But I provided 2 neutral and reliable sources saying WS is controlled by Morocco and 4 sources saying WS it is integral part of Morocco. Daryou 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the US state departement and Minurso didn't use the term "occupied"? Daryou 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]


I have added to the dispute page, so hopefully everything can be resolved.




Please follow the wikipedia civility policies, Francis. Sarcasm is not a way to engage in productive discussion.

-Justforasecond 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who said I was being sarcastic. Do you have your divining rod out again? - FrancisTyers 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

kurdish medias[edit]

thanks man I'll let u know when I'm somewhere... it might take some time lol. but I'll do it. Soapy(reloaded) 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cold Fusion Page Edits[edit]

FrancisTyers please stop removing the current "External Links" from the Cold Fusion article. These external links have been in place for months and months without any controversy and are unrelated to the other controversy regarding the editing of the page. The external links are provided for information purposes for people looking for more information regarding cold fusion. There is no rational for removing informative links. Thank you.

I reverted once to the consensus version. You are the one who is edit warring. I shall not be reverting anymore, you may sort out the dispute amongst yourselves. The use of stop removing suggests I reverted more than once, please try and be more accurate. Thanks, - FrancisTyers 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no consensus on the version you reverted to. I read the discussion about demoting Cold Fusion from featured status. That could hardly be called a consensus. Besides, you went too far. It's one thing to revert to the original article, but to fail to carryover relevant links that have been made since the reverted version, and there were many of them on the cold fusion page, is not using very good editorial discretion. Rock nj 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings, FrancisTyers! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justforasecond added to Deeceevoice arb[edit]

I have added a section on Justforasecond harassing Deeceevoice to Deeceevoice's arbitration. I have also proposed that JFAS be banned from contacting Deeceevoice, discussing her, and enforcing any arb ruling against her (let others do it--JFAS would just stir up more trouble doing so). My understanding is that arbitrations can be expanded to include any of the involved parties, so this should be permitted. Please go and read the measure and see if it is something you could support. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied on your talk page. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mostar bridge[edit]

I uploaded some high resolution pictures of the mostar bridge while in contruction on commons:

Donar Reiskoffer 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Healing Wikipedia[edit]

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Consider creating an account" template[edit]

Hello. Which template are you using for the "Consider creating an account" message I saw you leave on an anonymous IP talk page earlier today? I do a bit of vandalism cleanup from time to time and this would be a handy message to leave behind. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Template:anon, perfect, thanks! --StuffOfInterest 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WS mediation[edit]

  • Hi, my response is in this page and this one, especially: "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.".
  • I think that Koavf accepted your proposed compromises texts. He didn't yet provide evidence about the common usage of the term WS. He didn't provide sources for some sentences in Sahrawi article. And he continues resorting to intimidation and personal attacks [2].
  • Best regards Daryou 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]